New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Job Market
Real Estate
New York Region
NYT Front Page
Readers' Opinions

Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Week in Review
Learning Network
Book a Trip
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (5216 previous messages)

lchic - 12:21pm Oct 25, 2002 EST (# 5217 of 5230)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Russia-Iran close to deal on nuclear cooperation

"" Russia said on Thursday it had taken a step closer to signing a long-term economic deal with Iran that would ensure continued cooperation with the Islamic republic in the nuclear sector despite U.S. concerns.

Russia plans to build up to six civil nuclear reactors, develop oil and gas deposits, jointly manufacture aircraft and cooperate in communications and the metals industry under the planned 10-year deal.

This would be in addition to Russia's 1990s agreement with Iran to build a nuclear plant at Bushehr on the Gulf coast, a project that has long infuriated Washington.

Iran has repeatedly said that its nuclear cooperation with Russia is for peaceful purposes. But U.S. officials argue there can be no reason for a country with Iran's oil resources to want so many nuclear reactors, implying that the plants could be used to produce weapons-grade nuclear material.

U.S. President George W. Bush earlier this year included Iran with Iraq and North Korea in an "axis of evil" bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction and backing terrorism.

A Russian government statement quoted on Thursday Deputy Prime-Minister Viktor Khristenko as saying Russia and Iraq planned to resolve differences soon over the long-term deal, with more experts' meetings planned this week.

Khristenko, who met on Thursday Iranian oil minister Bijan Zanganeh, said U.S. concerns over nuclear cooperation programme were exaggerated and added Moscow would try hard to explain its position.

"We have to deepen our relations on both (Iranian and U.S.) fronts... The history of our relations with Iran counts more than one day and more than one year," Russian agency Interfax quoted Khristenko as saying.

The statement also said Khristenko and Zanganeh discussed cooperation between non-OPEC Russia, the world's second largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia, and OPEC-member Iran, but gave no details.

A Russian Energy Ministry official told Reuters Zanganeh also met on Thursday Russian Energy Minister Igor Yusufov.

"The two men discussed market stability and price prospectives as it had happened before during our talks with other OPEC-member officials," he said.

Russia agreed to curb oil supplies by five percent in the first six months of 2002 to help OPEC rein in global output and keep prices firm but kept pumping at capacity and boosted supplies further after the deal expired in July. //Reuters ~

lchic - 12:25pm Oct 25, 2002 EST (# 5218 of 5230)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

' Russia plans to build up to six civil nuclear reactors,

develop oil and gas deposits, jointly manufacture aircraft and cooperate in communications and the metals industry under the planned 10-year deal. ' (above)

Raises the question - why doesn't IRAN go for GREEN energy - it has SOLAR potential .... are the REAL FULL HOLISTIC costs of building NUKEreactors (including clean-up) been understood!

mazza9 - 04:26pm Oct 25, 2002 EST (# 5219 of 5230)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries


You bring up energy policy for Iran at a Missile Defense forum. How on topic can you get?

However, since you brought it up, I suggest that you read Dr. O'Neills "High Frontier". This Princeton professor taught physics in an unusual fashion. He asked his students to cogitate on physics and how the space program could be made economically viable. The solution was to build large solar power generating stations with material mined on the moon. The electricity thus generated would be beamed to Earth. Imagine if all this energy meant that all the power plants on the planet, coal, oil and nuclear, could be shut down. How better to achieve Kyoto protocols.

A civilization's progress is measured by the amount of energy that it's citizens have at their beck and call. Imagine if every hut, hovel, hotel and mansion had the same cheap electricity. Who would benefit? EVERYONE. Space is the answer for those who have vision. If you're always lookin' at your feet you'll always see dirt. Look up and you'll see the stars. Sound romantic? You betcha!

Space Studies Institute O'Neills Legacy.

lchic - 05:44pm Oct 25, 2002 EST (# 5220 of 5230)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

If you want to BUY the British Nuclear Power system - it's for sale - no takers - reason: unknown costs and future claims ... holistic accounting says - unviable!

More Messages Recent Messages (10 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us